On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 12:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
No, it isn't. Surely you can avoid the necessity to bump release
for all branches.
Upon rereading your original mail, I still don't see how this is
avoided. Can you help me understand how the following test cases would
work:
(Assume that FC-3 and FC-4 are current, FC-5 in devel. Also keep in mind
the aforementioned Golden Rule, that packages in FC-3 < FC-4)
1. The Normal Case
In the FC-3 repo, you have:
foo-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
In the FC-4 repo, you have:
foo-1.0-2.noarch.rpm
You need to errata the FC-3 repo.
2. The CVS Case (disconnected)
In the FC-3 repo, you start with:
foo-0.0-1.20050315.noarch.com (pre-release cvs checkout)
In FC-4, you need a later checkout:
foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com
The FC-3 package needs a bugfix errata, without new cvs checkout. FC-4
does not.
3. The CVS Case (same source)
In the FC-3 repo, you start with:
foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com
You use the same cvs co for the FC-4 repo:
foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com
Resolve the conflict in naming between branches, and perform an FC-3
only package errata.
(Note that I have avoided dist tag usage on purpose to avoid
"complicating" the issue, but if they're useful in your solutions, feel
free to reintroduce them here)
Thanks in advance,
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader:
http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!